Rick,

Interesting and detailed analysis. But here's the thing. Whether it's reasonable or not, our choices are to do it or spend the rest of our athletic lives somewhere between CUSA and D-3.

We can say it's a reasonable objective.
We can say it's not a reasonable objective, but it is a possible one, and therefore we should take JFK's advice when he asked, "Why does Rice play Texas?" Just do it anyway. Sometimes it is necessary to do unreasonable things.
Or we can take the historic Rice attitude and say it's not reasonable, therefore we are excused from trying. This epitomizes, "Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," and, "If you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there." Except we do know where it leads--CUSA for now, probably Sunbelt in a few years, eventually D-3. If you're fine with that, fine. If not, then you are left with the two choices above.

The choice is yours and all of ours. Do we want to take the easy way out because it is reasonable, or do we want to dare to be better because it's at least theoretically possible?

(10-26-2016 08:18 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Lots of good points. But perhaps the most "Rice" post I've ever seen.

I'm going to +1,000 to this, Rick. Outstanding RICE response... and I hope you know i mean that with great respect...

Just wanted to say that upfront as I edit and try and respond (I'm a dumb jock, remember) inline below

(10-26-2016 08:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Ham,
You asked a specific question: Whether your expectations are unrealistic. I’m not sure I, or anyone can answer that with certainty. I will say that they are potentially achievable and leave it at that.

That (like your post) is what Rice is all about.

Quote:But you've stated that your expectation is competing for a CUSA championship every season. That is, in my estimation, expecting 9 wins a season, year in and year out, every year (the Alabama of CUSA for lack of a better picture).

Weeelll, What I'm really expecting is 7-0 or 6-1 in CUSA West. I think the reality is that 'that team' and 'what we're likely to schedule' means more like 9 wins, but 6-5 COULD win the division and compete for the conference championship.

Quote:But I do want to address the issue of performance expectations in a rational manner.
First, before I start, this discussion is offered up in answer to your question. I am not attempting to apply this to Bailiff or any other coaching staff. I am not defending our current record, which would be on the wrong side of the bell curve, or praise 2008 and 2013 which are on the right side of the bell curve. I am also not offering this up in response to anyone’s feelings on if, when and how our coaching staff should be changed.

Understood

Quote:OK. To discuss expectations, let’s start with a couple of assumptions (this is all obvious, but bear with me):

edited merely for brevity... you're right.

Quote:So I’ll close where I started. Yes, I believe your expectation is achievable.

To do that we need to move as many factors as possible to the right side of the bell curve.

I'm going to disagree on one factor...

The far right of the bell curve for CUSA, say the 98th percentile is somewhere between 50 and 35... which is only around the 65th or so percentile of FBS.... and REALLY, I made the comment because it's the same comment that Bailiff and Kargaard both said was our goal. goal/expectation? I didn't think the distinction was material.

Quote:Assuming that we won’t change our recruiting pool, and that we aren’t going to suddenly develop a 30,000 per game fan base (or find a Fertita who will fund a head coach by his lonesome) . . . . .

For a short period of time, I think an off-the-charts coach and staff (y1 y2) with some successful recruiting (x1 and c), could give us a 3-year run competing for CUSA and winning 10 every year.

I think it would take an upper 99 percentile hire (e.g., Urban Meyer at Utah, Harbaugh at Stanford) not just a very good coach or a 90th percentile coach (Hatfield, based on Air Force, Arkansas, cleaning up Clemson)

So to make it reasonable, we either have to get that Hall of Fame, 99 percentile coach to stay indefinitely, as we did with Wayne Graham, which in turn significantly changed our baseball program’s Z factor,
Or we need to improve our football team’s Z factor (which includes our institution’s ability to hit home runs on every coaching hire).

I really don’t know. Achievable in given year, absolutely, we've done it. Achievable short term, yes but a lot of things need to happen. Potentially achievable year in, year out? See Wayne Graham, so yes, but it means winning the lotto twice.

Reasonable? You tell me.

I'll disagree here as well.

First, I WOULD recruit differently...

Second, CUSA has been won every year of its existence by a coach who made less than $1mm and wasn't Urban Meyer... so I don't know why it would take such a coach now. I think making Rice a destination for coaches is part of the goal. How do we do that? By making Rice stand out from the pack.

The key to dominating CUSA is to take advantage of the ONE thing we have that NOBODY else in CUSA has, and that is a top 20 (or even top 120) University. We don't have to consistently out-recruit UT... We just have to out-recruit UTSA. OF COURSE they will get some guys that we couldn't recruit, but we will also get some guys who wouldn't consider them (academically). So we have to do a better job of identifying and reaching out to those people.

If you don't focus on that group of people... 'people who value education' and sell the hell out of it... then you've got no chance.... because THAT is our niche, and an area where we dominate.... and our facilities and coaches and salaries and everything else isn't nearly as different from the rest of CUSA as our academic rating. I realize there isn't much correlation between academics and athletics, but there also isn't an inverse relationship.

If we spend more money on football, a BUNCH of it should be on expanding our recruiting... and the first thing I"D do is go to the BOT and get their help in this....because ultimately, that means getting a better 'student athlete'. The idea that we can get all the players we need from Texas is an artificial limitation we don't need. That doesn't mean we wouldn't get the majority of them from Texas, but we need to try and poach some guys from KU and Duke and guys who didn't get the 'nod' from Stanford. I'd also work with the Jones school on getting some graduate transfers.

To use your terminology, I'm focusing on the 'x' and hoping to use that built-in recruiting differential to attract better coaches which addresses y and z.

We keep talking about it as a disadvantage... and relative to p5 it is... but relative to g5, it's potentially a difference maker.

Football players aren't that different from anyone else... and if the football quality is even arguably close... I believe that a majority of them would value Rice over UTSA/UTEP/USM/UAB/LaTech and UNT. We only need to identify the best 20 or so a year.

How does Rice get 18,000 applicants for 1000 spaces?

Inherent in the assumption and progression that i made is that we would lose a coach who took us to one or more conference championships and we would have to replace them, and if their replacement significantly regressed, I would replace them before they killed the recruiting goodwill from the championships. Saying it is my expectation/goal to compete for the championship doesn't mean that going 5-2 gets a head coach fired, but it MIGHT mean that some assistants do... I'd ask a coach to defend why he wouldn't replace a coach over an area where we were statistically poor and essentially say... if you keep that coach... fine... your call... but if you stand by him and he doesn't fix it, it MIGHT cost you YOUR job.

The University is our greatest recruiting advantage... why would we not put that front-and-center?

Rick, you are assuming 'all' the factors are discrete.

Are 'all' of the factors discrete? No.

Rice can't change its past, but it can change its future.

(10-26-2016 09:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Rick,

Interesting and detailed analysis. But here's the thing. Whether it's reasonable or not, our choices are to do it or spend the rest of our athletic lives somewhere between CUSA and D-3.

We can say it's a reasonable objective.
We can say it's not a reasonable objective, but it is a possible one, and therefore we should take JFK's advice when he asked, "Why does Rice play Texas?" Just do it anyway. Sometimes it is necessary to do unreasonable things.
Or we can take the historic Rice attitude and say it's not reasonable, therefore we are excused from trying. This epitomizes, "Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," and, "If you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there." Except we do know where it leads--CUSA for now, probably Sunbelt in a few years, eventually D-3. If you're fine with that, fine. If not, then you are left with the two choices above.

The choice is yours and all of ours. Do we want to take the easy way out because it is reasonable, or do we want to dare to be better because it's at least theoretically possible?

And to be clear, I don't think losing consistently is OK. My "realistic" approach would have us match Jess Neely's general patterns, which I've discussed before. 75% winning seasons (which at this point means bowls each of those years), with 1 year at conference champion in that 3 (or at least a very serious contender, i.e. a 10 win season or better). With that frequency and level of winning, an off year (a la Neely, or last year's 5 wins) should be tolerable, assuming the pattern is repeated.

Is that the best we can do? No. Is it realistic? Given that college football is highly competitive and staying on the far right of the bell curve every year is very difficult, it probably is.

Will that get us to P5? I don't see that. Can anything get us to P5? With our enrollment and attendance, our Z factor, located in Houston where fans are within driving range of College Station and Austin, and where every game is on TV somewhere? I don't know, but I'm afraid there are several other G5 schools who have better Z factors.

Would that level of performance make us a better than average G5 school? Yeah, I think so.

Trouble is that except for 2012-2915, and parts of Hatfield's regime, we haven't performed at the "Neely level" since the 1950's.

I am not arguing your point, or saying what we should or should not do. Neither of us know where we'll be in 10 years. We may have another 3 conference championships, or we may have recycled the 1977-79, 82-88 era results. And no one thinks losing all the time is OK.

I am just trying to paint a realistic picture of what we're up against.

(10-26-2016 10:50 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Rick, you are assuming 'all' the factors are discrete.

Are 'all' of the factors discrete? No.

Rice can't change its past, but it can change its future.

I'm actually not assuming much of anything about individual factors or their inter-relationships.

As I noted, we got the 99th percentile coach in baseball and by convincing him to stay (build Reckling, etc), we completely changed the baseball program's Z factor.

If it were just that simple, every university would snap their fingers and have a winning baseball program.

Much of what you've been preaching, is in fact paradigm shifting, which I alluded to in my post.

The confidence level any one of us might have in your specific suggestions to change equations differs, but I acknowledge that what you're proposing is a different way to shift some of our factors to the right. In as much as they are not the same as what most of the other 127 Division 1 schools could or would attempt to shift their factors, it would differentiate us.

The question is whether it is a big factor or a small one, and how synergistic it would be with other factors.

Oh, by listing Urban Meyer and Harbaugh, I was referring to the Meyer and Harbaugh who were available before Utah and Stanford. Given our institutional commitment, a Rice, Vandy, Tulane, etc. only land those kinds of guys before anyone else figures out how much they're worth. I don't think you need the future Meyer/Harbaugh to win 10 games or a conference championship. Bailiff has done it. But I think that's the level of Wayne Graham type home run you need to compete annually, year-in, year out for a CUSA championship, given our other Z factors.

(10-26-2016 10:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 08:18 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Lots of good points. But perhaps the most "Rice" post I've ever seen.

I'm going to +1,000 to this, Rick. Outstanding RICE response... and I hope you know i mean that with great respect...

Just wanted to say that upfront as I edit and try and respond (I'm a dumb jock, remember) inline below

(10-26-2016 08:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Ham,
You asked a specific question: Whether your expectations are unrealistic. I’m not sure I, or anyone can answer that with certainty. I will say that they are potentially achievable and leave it at that.

That (like your post) is what Rice is all about.

Quote:But you've stated that your expectation is competing for a CUSA championship every season. That is, in my estimation, expecting 9 wins a season, year in and year out, every year (the Alabama of CUSA for lack of a better picture).

Weeelll, What I'm really expecting is 7-0 or 6-1 in CUSA West. I think the reality is that 'that team' and 'what we're likely to schedule' means more like 9 wins, but 6-5 COULD win the division and compete for the conference championship.

Quote:But I do want to address the issue of performance expectations in a rational manner.
First, before I start, this discussion is offered up in answer to your question. I am not attempting to apply this to Bailiff or any other coaching staff. I am not defending our current record, which would be on the wrong side of the bell curve, or praise 2008 and 2013 which are on the right side of the bell curve. I am also not offering this up in response to anyone’s feelings on if, when and how our coaching staff should be changed.

Understood

Quote:OK. To discuss expectations, let’s start with a couple of assumptions (this is all obvious, but bear with me):

edited merely for brevity... you're right.

Quote:So I’ll close where I started. Yes, I believe your expectation is achievable.

To do that we need to move as many factors as possible to the right side of the bell curve.

I'm going to disagree on one factor...

The far right of the bell curve for CUSA, say the 98th percentile is somewhere between 50 and 35... which is only around the 65th or so percentile of FBS.... and REALLY, I made the comment because it's the same comment that Bailiff and Kargaard both said was our goal. goal/expectation? I didn't think the distinction was material.

Quote:Assuming that we won’t change our recruiting pool, and that we aren’t going to suddenly develop a 30,000 per game fan base (or find a Fertita who will fund a head coach by his lonesome) . . . . .

For a short period of time, I think an off-the-charts coach and staff (y1 y2) with some successful recruiting (x1 and c), could give us a 3-year run competing for CUSA and winning 10 every year.

I think it would take an upper 99 percentile hire (e.g., Urban Meyer at Utah, Harbaugh at Stanford) not just a very good coach or a 90th percentile coach (Hatfield, based on Air Force, Arkansas, cleaning up Clemson)

So to make it reasonable, we either have to get that Hall of Fame, 99 percentile coach to stay indefinitely, as we did with Wayne Graham, which in turn significantly changed our baseball program’s Z factor,
Or we need to improve our football team’s Z factor (which includes our institution’s ability to hit home runs on every coaching hire).

I really don’t know. Achievable in given year, absolutely, we've done it. Achievable short term, yes but a lot of things need to happen. Potentially achievable year in, year out? See Wayne Graham, so yes, but it means winning the lotto twice.

Reasonable? You tell me.

I'll disagree here as well.

First, I WOULD recruit differently...

Second, CUSA has been won every year of its existence by a coach who made less than $1mm and wasn't Urban Meyer... so I don't know why it would take such a coach now. I think making Rice a destination for coaches is part of the goal. How do we do that? By making Rice stand out from the pack.

The key to dominating CUSA is to take advantage of the ONE thing we have that NOBODY else in CUSA has, and that is a top 20 (or even top 120) University. We don't have to consistently out-recruit UT... We just have to out-recruit UTSA. OF COURSE they will get some guys that we couldn't recruit, but we will also get some guys who wouldn't consider them (academically). So we have to do a better job of identifying and reaching out to those people.

If you don't focus on that group of people... 'people who value education' and sell the hell out of it... then you've got no chance.... because THAT is our niche, and an area where we dominate.... and our facilities and coaches and salaries and everything else isn't nearly as different from the rest of CUSA as our academic rating. I realize there isn't much correlation between academics and athletics, but there also isn't an inverse relationship.

If we spend more money on football, a BUNCH of it should be on expanding our recruiting... and the first thing I"D do is go to the BOT and get their help in this....because ultimately, that means getting a better 'student athlete'. The idea that we can get all the players we need from Texas is an artificial limitation we don't need. That doesn't mean we wouldn't get the majority of them from Texas, but we need to try and poach some guys from KU and Duke and guys who didn't get the 'nod' from Stanford. I'd also work with the Jones school on getting some graduate transfers.

To use your terminology, I'm focusing on the 'x' and hoping to use that built-in recruiting differential to attract better coaches which addresses y and z.

We keep talking about it as a disadvantage... and relative to p5 it is... but relative to g5, it's potentially a difference maker.

Football players aren't that different from anyone else... and if the football quality is even arguably close... I believe that a majority of them would value Rice over UTSA/UTEP/USM/UAB/LaTech and UNT. We only need to identify the best 20 or so a year.

How does Rice get 18,000 applicants for 1000 spaces?

Inherent in the assumption and progression that i made is that we would lose a coach who took us to one or more conference championships and we would have to replace them, and if their replacement significantly regressed, I would replace them before they killed the recruiting goodwill from the championships. Saying it is my expectation/goal to compete for the championship doesn't mean that going 5-2 gets a head coach fired, but it MIGHT mean that some assistants do... I'd ask a coach to defend why he wouldn't replace a coach over an area where we were statistically poor and essentially say... if you keep that coach... fine... your call... but if you stand by him and he doesn't fix it, it MIGHT cost you YOUR job.

The University is our greatest recruiting advantage... why would we not put that front-and-center?

(10-26-2016 10:52 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I am not arguing your point, or saying what we should or should not do. Neither of us know where we'll be in 10 years. We may have another 3 conference championships, or we may have recycled the 1977-79, 82-88 era results. And no one thinks losing all the time is OK.
I am just trying to paint a realistic picture of what we're up against.

OK, so that's what we're up against. What do we do about it?

Do we accept less than mediocrity, or do we insist on overcoming it?

Do we stay with, "Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," and, "when you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there"? Or do we demand to follow JFK and do these things because they are hard?

Rick:

1. Amazing.
2. What's y5?
3. My Lord, I went to Rice!

(10-26-2016 08:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Also: • Our Z factor sucks.

This is by far the most fixable thing at Rice. And also the most willfully avoided. More than anything, the institutional support for being willing to pay competitive mid-level P5 coaching staff (including head coach) and recruiting budget expenses (as per my $6 million thread) has held Rice back for 40 years.

Rice can't do this on the cheap, which is exactly what the school has been trying to do for the last 40-odd years. Here at Rice with all the other limiting factors you skillfully broke down and enumerated, we HAVE to use our financial muscle much more than our admins have been willing to do in the past. And we Have the ability to be better..stronger..faster.





We may make a bad hire here or there, but with Owl69's low buyout clause, if we pay enough upfront, we can get better coaches, and give them a national recruiting budget to allow them to find every last one of the best players across America that can get into and graduate from Rice while playing football. Fix those two things, and Rice is in CUSA champ game every year, 9 or more wins every year, and hanging around Top25 many years, with a few Signature Wins and an occasional Access Bowl appearance. "It's the Z factor (money), stupid" is what the fans shirts should say in the stands. As I have laid out many times before, the rationale to spend (invest) in the football program is the marketing, national reputation, and long-term standing of the University in the modern American culture. Rice has the ability. Rice needs the institutional will to make it so.

Again, great post.

...and saw this is happening. Hope they do it right; if so, should be a good flick. I like Wahlberg:

(10-27-2016 08:08 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  [quote='Rick Gerlach' pid='13721488' dateline='1477530964']
This is by far the most fixable thing at Rice. And also the most willfully avoided. More than anything, the institutional support for being willing to pay competitive mid-level P5 coaching staff (including head coach) and recruiting budget expenses (as per my $6 million thread) has held Rice back for 40 years.

Rice can't do this on the cheap, which is exactly what the school has been trying to do for the last 40-odd years. Here at Rice with all the other limiting factors you skillfully broke down and enumerated, we HAVE to use our financial muscle much more than our admins have been willing to do in the past. And we Have the ability to be better..stronger..faster.

1000% the issue. And willingness to just sorta kinda try, um well maybe. Either do it and do it big or just shut it down. The lack of complete 1000% effort is and has allowed slow death by neglect.

Yes, there has been facility improvements, so someone made the effort to chase down donors, but how much university money was involved?

(10-27-2016 09:36 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 08:08 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  [quote='Rick Gerlach' pid='13721488' dateline='1477530964']
This is by far the most fixable thing at Rice. And also the most willfully avoided. More than anything, the institutional support for being willing to pay competitive mid-level P5 coaching staff (including head coach) and recruiting budget expenses (as per my $6 million thread) has held Rice back for 40 years.

Rice can't do this on the cheap, which is exactly what the school has been trying to do for the last 40-odd years. Here at Rice with all the other limiting factors you skillfully broke down and enumerated, we HAVE to use our financial muscle much more than our admins have been willing to do in the past. And we Have the ability to be better..stronger..faster.

1000% the issue. And willingness to just sorta kinda try, um well maybe. Either do it and do it big or just shut it down. The lack of complete 1000% effort is and has allowed slow death by neglect.

Yes, there has been facility improvements, so someone made the effort to chase down donors, but how much university money was involved?

So if this is the issue, why? Is the divide between Athletics and Academics a schism that has been there since the 60s and it is territorial? Big time athletics not seen as important to many?
Do Rice people think differently than Stanford, Vandy, Duke people? (I think, yes.)

(10-26-2016 10:52 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I am just trying to paint a realistic picture of what we're up against.

But you're not, Rick. Neely wasn't competing in CUSA.

Go back to my premise... I'm 'expecting' to go 7-0 or 6-1 against teams historically and on average ranked in the bottom half of college football. That doesn't take a 99th percentile coach. I think that team likely wins 1-4 of the OOC games (depending on whom we play and how they're ranked) but I don't expect to win >50% of our games against the modern day equivalent of a 'SWC' schedule.

I'm 'expecting' to use that success in CUSA to push us up the food chain somewhat.

All that means is that we can't be #90, feasting on the 4-5 teams ranked even worse than that... we must be closer to #50, feasting on those teams... plus the 1 CUSA team usually ranked closer to 75, and then competing with the one or two teams (often in the east) ranked between 50 and 35.

You're comparing two different cohorts... As I said, Neeley and Graham compete against the entire spectrum and they finish/ed to the right of the bell curve (towards #1). We're competing with a bell curve that caps out closer to #35, not #1. The PEAK of the overall bell curve is closer to where I'm expecting to land, where the largest number of teams are.... it just so happens that this WOULD be way to the right in CUSA, and I explained why i think we are different enough to be 'way to the right' in CUSA.

Serious question... If you were a swimmer and the facilities and coaching at Rice were 'competitive' with those at UTSA and UTEP and So Miss and LaTech... and ALL of those schools offered you scholarships... Don't you think you'd tend to lean towards Rice and the fact that you'd walk out with a top 20 degree rather than a rather nondescript one? Why would a football player be any different? So long as the 'expsure' was also the same. Of course, some people may be FROM San Antonio and/or simply prefer El Paso to Houston... but we REALLY should be in their final two, wouldn't you think? Athletes and their families aren't that different from anyone else... and if YOU would place SOME additional value on the Rice degree, then so would many of them.

This is frankly one of the reasons I'd reach more OUTSIDE Texas, at least to places where we are somewhat better known because you are less likely to come up against the guy we lose out to 'proximity'.

Yes, I'd change the paradigm somewhat in placing far more effort/resources into recruiting... If I had to choose, I'd place more importance on recruiting over marketing... because it's easier to market a better team... but I don't think you'd need more than one extra person whose job it was to scour the country and identify these potential recruits and collect some tape... and then have the SCHOOL make the first contact and see if we even get a response before I'd send a coach. Work with their guidance counselor as much as their coaches.... because their guidance counselor is going to be more favorably inclined towards us. You probably have to offer 50 scholarships to get 5 guys, but so what? That's exactly what the University does.

That's different from what we've done, but it's not as if it is an off-the-wall idea or something we couldn't do or have been doing for decades. In fact, I suspect its strongly in line with what JK thinks we should do, at least for non-revs. With 75% of g5 and lower p5 players not likely to get a sniff of the pros, why would we ignore this SINGLE (but significant) relative advantage?

FTR, we wouldn't have that advantage in p5... and perhaps that's what is causing some who have been here since those days to overlook it.

(10-26-2016 10:55 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  As I noted, we got the 99th percentile coach in baseball and by convincing him to stay (build Reckling, etc), we completely changed the baseball program's Z factor.

If it were just that simple, every university would snap their fingers and have a winning baseball program.

But we're not looking for a 99th percentile coach. That would have us competing for the national championship, not the CUSA championship

We're looking for a 65th percentile coach who would be competing for the CUSA championship by having a team ranked somewhere in the 65th percentile... arguably 'just above' there, as we leverage the significant 'value' we represent in g5.

(10-27-2016 10:30 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 10:52 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I am just trying to paint a realistic picture of what we're up against.

But you're not, Rick. Neely wasn't competing in CUSA.

Go back to my premise... I'm 'expecting' to go 7-0 or 6-1 against teams historically and on average ranked in the bottom half of college football. That doesn't take a 99th percentile coach. I think that team likely wins 1-4 of the OOC games (depending on whom we play and how they're ranked) but I don't expect to win >50% of our games against the modern day equivalent of a 'SWC' schedule.

I'm 'expecting' to use that success in CUSA to push us up the food chain somewhat.

All that means is that we can't be #90, feasting on the 4-5 teams ranked even worse than that... we must be closer to #50, feasting on those teams... plus the 1 CUSA team usually ranked closer to 75, and then competing with the one or two teams (often in the east) ranked between 50 and 35.

You're comparing two different cohorts... As I said, Neeley and Graham compete against the entire spectrum and they finish/ed to the right of the bell curve (towards #1). We're competing with a bell curve that caps out closer to #35, not #1. The PEAK of the overall bell curve is closer to where I'm expecting to land, where the largest number of teams are.... it just so happens that this WOULD be way to the right in CUSA, and I explained why i think we are different enough to be 'way to the right' in CUSA.

Serious question... If you were a swimmer and the facilities and coaching at Rice were 'competitive' with those at UTSA and UTEP and So Miss and LaTech... and ALL of those schools offered you scholarships... Don't you think you'd tend to lean towards Rice and the fact that you'd walk out with a top 20 degree rather than a rather nondescript one? Why would a football player be any different? So long as the 'expsure' was also the same. Of course, some people may be FROM San Antonio and/or simply prefer El Paso to Houston... but we REALLY should be in their final two, wouldn't you think? Athletes and their families aren't that different from anyone else... and if YOU would place SOME additional value on the Rice degree, then so would many of them.

This is frankly one of the reasons I'd reach more OUTSIDE Texas, at least to places where we are somewhat better known because you are less likely to come up against the guy we lose out to 'proximity'.

Yes, I'd change the paradigm somewhat in placing far more effort/resources into recruiting... If I had to choose, I'd place more importance on recruiting over marketing... because it's easier to market a better team... but I don't think you'd need more than one extra person whose job it was to scour the country and identify these potential recruits and collect some tape... and then have the SCHOOL make the first contact and see if we even get a response before I'd send a coach. Work with their guidance counselor as much as their coaches.... because their guidance counselor is going to be more favorably inclined towards us. You probably have to offer 50 scholarships to get 5 guys, but so what? That's exactly what the University does.

That's different from what we've done, but it's not as if it is an off-the-wall idea or something we couldn't do or have been doing for decades. In fact, I suspect its strongly in line with what JK thinks we should do, at least for non-revs. With 75% of g5 and lower p5 players not likely to get a sniff of the pros, why would we ignore this SINGLE (but significant) relative advantage?

FTR, we wouldn't have that advantage in p5... and perhaps that's what is causing some who have been here since those days to overlook it.

(10-26-2016 10:55 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  As I noted, we got the 99th percentile coach in baseball and by convincing him to stay (build Reckling, etc), we completely changed the baseball program's Z factor.

If it were just that simple, every university would snap their fingers and have a winning baseball program.

But we're not (GO edit: necessarily) looking for a 99th percentile coach. That would have us competing for the national championship, not the CUSA championship

We're looking for a 65th percentile coach who would be competing for the CUSA championship by having a team ranked somewhere in the 65th percentile... arguably 'just above' there, as we leverage the significant 'value' we represent in g5.

Rick's post was great, but yours also modifies it to zero in on how that should work at Rice. I agree it's more than possible, it's very doable. main adjustment needed: the University Admin's attitude about the value of football at Rice. As long as they do not value it more, they miss the overall benefits to the university as a whole, not just to the football program itself.
It's more than worth it to be budgeting the extra $2-3million per season for football to get us to about $6 million per for coaching and recruiting as you and Owl69 have alluded to in your posts above.

I agree that we don't have to have a 99th percentile coach to meet certain goals.

I guess my point is that to be a dominating G5 program (a la pre-Big 12 TCU or Boise, or BYU back when it was QB University), we've got to overcome the other factors that frankly we don't have a magic wand to fix.

I alluded to this indirectly in my long post, but I think the single most important factor in our successful seasons whether 1980-81, or under Hatfield or under Bailiff, is the quality of our football players, or x1

Given a quality group of players, at least a significant number of them, then yes, a 65th percentile coach, or even an average coach, can put together a good season or two. We've done it. A good coach can do more with less (our 8-4 team in 2001 didn't have any NFL players that I recall).

While I agree with your concept of emphasizing our education, and that potentially could be a differentiator at G5 levels, the fact remains that our x3 number (i.e., the pool of talented players who can get into, and stay eligible at, Rice) is smaller than any other G5 school, and that factor is going to remain on the wrong side of the bell curve regardless of who we hire at Rice. You want us to get a higher value of c (correct assessment) within that pool.

To sustain at the top of any conference, year-in, year-out, against a number of teams that are participating in the Z factor Arms Race, and admitting scores of jucos to push their x3 numbers to the far right on the curve) . . . . i.e. Rice synonymous with the conference elite . . . .

I think you have to be far, far to the right on your coaching numbers, including not only y1, by y4 which takes in recruiting capability.

So that's my rationale for saying that 10-win season streaks require a 99th percentile coach. Harbaugh wasn't competing for national championships at USD (or Stanford). Urban Meyer had Utah in the MWC elite, but was not perennially Top 10 there either. Our job is a stepping stone for that coach. As it may have been for Wayne Graham, except for a lot of factors that broke in our favor.

Hatfield, honest to God, was a 90th percentile coach. He did more with less, he ran a contrarian offensive scheme to perfection at his coaching stops.

And even he had trouble keeping us above .500 (although he was just under .500 very often). He did win one co-conference championship.

(10-27-2016 10:30 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 10:55 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  As I noted, we got the 99th percentile coach in baseball and by convincing him to stay (build Reckling, etc), we completely changed the baseball program's Z factor.

If it were just that simple, every university would snap their fingers and have a winning baseball program.

But we're not looking for a 99th percentile coach. That would have us competing for the national championship, not the CUSA championship

We're looking for a 65th percentile coach who would be competing for the CUSA championship by having a team ranked somewhere in the 65th percentile... arguably 'just above' there, as we leverage the significant 'value' we represent in g5.

th

(10-26-2016 10:55 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 10:50 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Rick, you are assuming 'all' the factors are discrete.

Are 'all' of the factors discrete? No.

Rice can't change its past, but it can change its future.

I'm actually not assuming much of anything about individual factors or their inter-relationships.

As I noted, we got the 99th percentile coach in baseball and by convincing him to stay (build Reckling, etc), we completely changed the baseball program's Z factor.

If it were just that simple, every university would snap their fingers and have a winning baseball program.

But Rick it isn't that simple because 99th percentile coaches are (very) few and (very) far between. Wayne Graham didn't just magically appear. He was a future hall of fame coach that was being overlooked because of his age, etc. Recruits were naturally drawn to him due to his past success with teams and individuals. The team improved --> the fan base improved --> financial support improved. All inter-related.

Your analysis suggests little, if any, interrelationship. It's a nice model and that's about it.

Having a 10th or 20th percentile coach in football is adversely affecting practically all aspects of the program (in my humble opinion). The building of the EZF was a leap of faith and, if the benefactor was questioned, probably not based on faith in the current coaching staff, our conference affiliation, etc.

"6. Different schools have differing degrees of ability to adjust their factors. (all factors fall under their own individual bell curves for all 128 schools)"


Rick the "individual" bell curves aren't identical and aren't bells. Some are skewed to the left (Rice) and some are skewed to the right (Alabama). Only as a totality do you then approach a 'normal' distribution.

Besides, Rice wants to be an outlier...a successful outlier.

My goal would be to be Navy in football and Gonzaga in basketball. Navy and Gonzaga do it, so it's possible. It's probably not reasonable for either one of them to be where they are.

Navy is probably closer to the limitations that we face. But we are probably closer to being Gonzaga than we are to being Navy.

If we become Navy in football and Gonzaga in basketball, we will be just fine, regardless of conference affiliation. Conference affiliation is not an integral part of either of their successes.

Reasonable people try to work within established norms and processes to get things done. Unreasonable people rock the boat until they get what they want. I think it was Einstein who said, therefore, all progress depends on unreasonable people.

I am with Hambone.

As to recruiting, what you fail to consider is that yes the pool is smaller for Rice but the numbers of recruits for everybody is capped at 85. The key for Rice is to increase the saturation of our limited pool.

JUCO players count towards the 85. As such, they carry no more weight or value from a numbers standpoint. The only advantage is that they may upgrade the talent at a position on that particular team. However, it doesn't increase their recruiting pool or decrease Rice's. And if Rice gets a higher penetration within their pool, it remains a moot point.

If you are arguing that the talent available within the Rice pool nationwide will never equal the less lax academic pool, then that is your opinion and may not be shared by some on this board.

Paying more for coaches doesn't guarantee success. The only way to get success is to have success. It will be trial and error. Even production lines with the greatest quality control will still produce a lemon or inferior product with regards to the desired results.

I REALLY like this conversation, Rick... so I hope my 'debating' doesn't come across wrong.

You're stepping beyond where we are and looking to the future and ignoring the gap between here and there. At THIS point, I'm not looking to dominate g5. I'm looking to dominate CUSA. A 65th percentile coach with improved recruiting can do that.... as can a 90th percentile coach with the same recruiting... but like you, I don't like planning on a 99th percentile coach. I'll look for 99, and still reach my initial goals if he's as low as 65.

I think it clear that Boise and UH and a few others in the AAC are closer to dominating g5, and honestly, with the academies and Tulane and SMU, we are marginally less unique in g5 as a whole.

Hatfield was in a different conference. Put Hatfield with these facilities and my recruiting plan and he's winning more. Put Hatfield in CUSA with these facilities and my recruiting plan and he's dominating CUSA AND competing with top 25 teams... So I agree that this takes us there faster if you find that guy... but the point is to be optimistic that you're getting there. Right now we don't see that and THAT is what must change.

We are where we are, and we aren't in control of changing that... If an opportunity comes and that changes our fortunes, then my strategy would change... perhaps including a string of 90th percentile coaches like UH did with Briles, Sumlin, Levine (firing him because he didn't pan out) and now Hermann.

Going back to my original premise (from memory) it was to consistently win CUSA and turn that into consistently beating lower p5 and competing with middle p5 and turn that into beating some middle p5 and competing with upper, if not top p5.

I think it far easier to GET a young Harbaugh or Meyer if we're dominating CUSA and have a unique and integrated approach to recruiting that takes some of the concerns away.

All a coach for most schools has to do is focus on picking players from his pool, and his pool is 'everyone'. I'm wanting to give our coaches a shallower, but far broader pool to choose from... one that perhaps a single employee, working with the administration produces for him (acting as a filter between the recruiting services and the coach).

(10-27-2016 12:50 PM)ruowls Wrote:  I am with Hambone.

As to recruiting, what you fail to consider is that yes the pool is smaller for Rice but the numbers of recruits for everybody is capped at 85. The key for Rice is to increase the saturation of our limited pool.

JUCO players count towards the 85. As such, they carry no more weight or value from a numbers standpoint. The only advantage is that they may upgrade the talent at a position on that particular team. However, it doesn't increase their recruiting pool or decrease Rice's. And if Rice gets a higher penetration within their pool, it remains a moot point.

If you are arguing that the talent available within the Rice pool nationwide will never equal the less lax academic pool, then that is your opinion and may not be shared by some on this board.

Paying more for coaches doesn't guarantee success. The only way to get success is to have success. It will be trial and error. Even production lines with the greatest quality control will still produce a lemon or inferior product with regards to the desired results.

As usual, far more succinct and on point than I.

The point about the recruiting pool is important. The reason to go wider/broader is to have access to more players who fit the mold we are looking for. UH can fill their bucket without leaving the city. We have to go MUCH further to fill ours... because we can only skim the top layers. I know that's a euphemism, but it's actually pretty spot on. We HAVE to spend more on recruiting, and I think engaging through the University is a way to get a very large bang for our buck AND tie us closer to the goals of the University (politically)

The NUMBER of players in the more lax pond is certainly higher, but so too are the number of schools fishing in that pond... and for CUSA, there are 13 in THAT pool and ONLY us in ours.

(10-27-2016 01:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 12:50 PM)ruowls Wrote:  I am with Hambone.

As to recruiting, what you fail to consider is that yes the pool is smaller for Rice but the numbers of recruits for everybody is capped at 85. The key for Rice is to increase the saturation of our limited pool.

JUCO players count towards the 85. As such, they carry no more weight or value from a numbers standpoint. The only advantage is that they may upgrade the talent at a position on that particular team. However, it doesn't increase their recruiting pool or decrease Rice's. And if Rice gets a higher penetration within their pool, it remains a moot point.

If you are arguing that the talent available within the Rice pool nationwide will never equal the less lax academic pool, then that is your opinion and may not be shared by some on this board.

Paying more for coaches doesn't guarantee success. The only way to get success is to have success. It will be trial and error. Even production lines with the greatest quality control will still produce a lemon or inferior product with regards to the desired results.

As usual, far more succinct and on point than I.

The point about the recruiting pool is important. The reason to go wider/broader is to have access to more players who fit the mold we are looking for. UH can fill their bucket without leaving the city. We have to go MUCH further to fill ours... because we can only skim the top layers. I know that's a euphemism, but it's actually pretty spot on. We HAVE to spend more on recruiting, and I think engaging through the University is a way to get a very large bang for our buck AND tie us closer to the goals of the University (politically)

The NUMBER of players in the more lax pond is certainly higher, but so too are the number of schools fishing in that pond... and for CUSA, there are 13 in THAT pool and ONLY us in ours.

Yeah, but there are plenty of smart kids who go to the other schools too... I would estimate that 30-40% of every other C-USA roster could play at Rice. Remember that QB from ODU who is now an NFL backup, he was a Mechanical Engineering major with a pretty good GPA. I bet he could have qualified. Some (actually, a lot) of people just choose to play elsewhere.

My point: Other schools dip into our pond, we can't dip into their pond.